Re: [asa] God, Chance and Purpose

Just wondering if anyone on this list has heard of "compatibilist free
will"?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Compatibilism

The essential idea is that as one is not coerced one is exercising
free will. Thus, such a view is consistent with determinism,
predictibility, divine foreordination, and divine foreknowledge.
Incompatibilists do not consider compatibilism to be a form of free
will, but that's simply a matter of opinion and definition. By and
large open theists have rejected compatibilism to be a form of free
will. Hence, they end up with their position about divine foreknowledge.

TG

On Jun 9, 2008, at 1:50 PM, Brian Harper wrote:

> At 11:23 AM 6/9/2008, Kirk Bertsche wrote:
>> I would suggest that this would not negate "free will", but would
>> only show that someone's "free will" is predictable.
>>
>> Our definition and understanding of "free will" is crucial to
>> discussions like these, and is often not well defined. There are a
>> number of different understandings in Christendom and in culture.
>> I believe Erasmus' view involved some idea of arbitrariness or
>> ability to make contrary choice, and Luther argued against this in
>> "Bondage of the Will" (maybe George Murphy can add some insight
>> here?) Perhaps a good definition might be "the ability to choose
>> as one desires". But this implies that one's desires may restrict
>> the free choices that he will actually make, and that one's free
>> choice may well be predictable by someone who understands his
>> desires.
>>
>> Kirk
>
> Interesting. To me predictable free will is an oxymoron. "the
> ability to choose as one desires" would turn into a useless
> tautology pretty soon IMHO. I have been taking Erasmus' view for
> granted I am afraid. How can a person have free will if they are
> incapable of making an arbitrary or contrary choice? It doesn't make
> sense.
>
>
>> On Jun 7, 2008, at 6:37 PM, Brian Harper wrote:
>>
>>> At 05:29 PM 6/6/2008, Kirk Bertsche wrote:
>>>> FYI, this is essentially the same analogy that Millard Erickson
>>>> uses in his "Christian Theology" (except he uses chocolate cake
>>>> vs liver and onions). His point, like David's, is that God can
>>>> know us well enough to be certain of what we will choose even
>>>> though we have a completely free choice.
>>>>
>>>> Kirk
>>>
>>> Okay, let me propose a thought experiment. Suppose you and I got
>>> together and observed David over a long period of time. We took
>>> our observations and, with the help of a developed model and a
>>> super computer, were able predict every thing that David did. What
>>> he ate for breakfast, what color shirt he wore on Tuesday etc.
>>> etc. What would you conclude about David? That he has free will?
>>
>> =

________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
(o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jun 9 16:37:55 2008